Many Adams and Eves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i wonder does science take into account that Adam lived unto he was age 930 and seth his son who lived 912.

they mention his first son in the bible and it does say that he had other children however her is no number. also it says that seth had other children but the bible only mentions his first son Enosh.

at the end of the of there life it they could of had maybe 300 childen each and maybe more with twins and triplets and also there children have there children with in 1000 years here could have been 1000 humans easy if not many many more.
 
Since I know you follow StAnastasia’s comments, you can read back a few posts as to how she regards what the Church thinks about science.

I think I need to be a bit more blunt. This forum is called Catholic Answers, and I attempt to provide the Catholic Answer(s). However, I am often met by those with opinions but little to back themselves up with.

I am not referring to philosophy, but the Biology textbook as my starting point. All I try to point out is this: it is a woefully incomplete and misleading collection of data. Catholics need to be reminded of the rest of the story.

What is being sold here is a product, essentially a Biolgy textbook stapled to a copy of the Bible. If Catholics reject this arrangement, we are called ignorant, irrational, fundamentalists, literalists and just plain bad Catholics. If we do not submit to scientific circumcision, our Churches are not worth entering. They become less appealing to the highly educated.

The work of God cannot be taken into the laboratory and examined.

Your question about sectarian prayer ignores my comment regarding how prayer came to be in public schools in the first place. And I can add “In God We Trust” on our currency. Somehow, the sensitivity of the American judicial system was rather low in the period 1957 to 1962. I wonder why that is.

In any case, science as marketed here, cannot align with certain truths held by the Church, which is why this topic will go on ad infinitum for the forseeable future. It makes some people uncomfortable to know that with one billion adherents, evolution is still a tough sell (according to an article published in the New York Times).

And the final bit of hyperbole is the totally unprovable idea that God picked a pair of hominids out of the bunch. And it gets worse, much worse. A bag of chemicals grew a brain, went through this crazy God/gods/belief thing, but now that we’re modern (as opposed to a few weeks ago), we now get that all that delusional God/gods/belief stuff can be safely jettisoned. And so the billboard proclaims: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Then there are hints of the next phase: the post-theistic god where everything is wonderfully symbolic.

I have no problem with prayer in public schools. I support Santa Fe 530 U.S. at 313.

God bless,
Ed
🍿 Well uh, I’ve been lurking here and I saw a few statements in this post, some of which don’t seem to have been caught by anyone else (and if so, I apologize but I’m sure you would appreciate my repeating them).
am not referring to philosophy, but the Biology textbook as my starting point. All I try to point out is this: it is a woefully incomplete and misleading collection of data. Catholics need to be reminded of the rest of the story.
[bolding mine]

You are indeed correct, Ed (although I doubt you’ll even notice that I agree with you here as I am just a will o’ the wisp to you). Catholics need to be reminded of the rest of the story. As everyone else should be. And that is perfectly acceptable in a Catholic school and a Catholic church.

But it is not acceptable in a school which is run completely by taxes, lottery monies, or any other sources that are provided by those who do not wish to have religion discussed in a public setting. It is not fair to their children to have Truth shoved down their throats with no regard for their autonomy and intelligence and it’s not fair for Catholics to take their money and use it to further their own agenda.

Then there is this quote:
However, I am often met by those with opinions but little to back themselves up with.
I do hope you are not referring to any poster on this thread as they have provided you with source after source to back up their assertions. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for you.

And then, of course, there is this:
If Catholics reject this arrangement, we are called ignorant, irrational, fundamentalists, literalists and just plain bad Catholics. If we do not submit to scientific circumcision, our Churches are not worth entering. They become less appealing to the highly educated.
Who, on this thread, has called Catholics “ignorant,” “irrational,” “fundamentalist,”
“literalist,” and/or “just plain bad Catholics” in a pejorative manner? If it is there I certainly haven’t seen it.

Your repeated remarks about “scientific circumcision” show a certain crudeness. Nobody else has used this term (except for me, right here). Although you have been informed over and over ad nauseum that you are not required to believe in any scientific theory of evolution, you continue to insist that scientists are demanding you do that very thing and that if you don’t, the Catholic Church is not worth entering.

And then you make the statement that the Catholic Church is less appealing to the highly educated? ** I then submit to you (and everyone else who is interested) that you have insulted the bride of Christ by your statement.**

You continue to discuss prayer in schools as if that were the subject of this thread, and it is not. That being said, I wish it to be known that I have no problem with a period of time set aside for personal reflection. And if students wish to pray at this time, silently, that is fine with me. But to take away other students’ free will and force them to pray Catholic prayers is absolutely unacceptable.

-----continued in next post-----
 
-----continuation of last post-----
The work of God cannot be taken into the laboratory and examined.
Yes, it can. The work of God encompasses absolutely every bit of nature. Are you denying God’s work in pocket mice? Aren’t pocket mice created by God, from His love? Pocket mice can be and are studied in the laboratory. I have done so myself. I have also studied other parts of mammalogy, herpetology, ichthyology, entomology, marine biology, geology, chemistry, physics, animal behavior, microbiology, histology, and more - all of which are certainly God’s work. I also submit that our intelligence and ability to examine God’s creations are gifts from God and are therefore God’s work, as well as our free will.

Do you deny this?

OR WILL YOU IGNORE THIS POST, TOO?
It makes some people uncomfortable to know that with one billion adherents, evolution is still a tough sell (according to an article published in the New York Times).
It certainly makes you uncomfortable to even discuss science. And may I remind you that sources should be provided when you make a claim such as you have made here. All you have done is provide a baseless assertion.
And the final bit of hyperbole is the totally unprovable idea that God picked a pair of hominids out of the bunch. And it gets worse, much worse. A bag of chemicals grew a brain, went through this crazy God/gods/belief thing, but now that we’re modern (as opposed to a few weeks ago), we now get that all that delusional God/gods/belief stuff can be safely jettisoned. And so the billboard proclaims: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.
I’m not clear on the latest achievements in science re evolutionary theory, but you place limits on God’s omnipotence. He certainly can pick a pair of hominids “out of the bunch” if He wants to, and who are YOU to decide what He can do? You are, at the least, implying here that you are personally aware of God’s omnipotence and omniscience in a way that is unavailable to other human beings, and oh, I don’t like to say this, but you are making yourself God. I will repeat a statement you have made on more than one occasion (with some minor changes): I will not bend my knee before YOU.

You have once again presented your mockery of science and have insulted every scientist, Catholic, other Christian and/or anyone who is searching for Truth, by stating : “A bag of chemicals grew a brain, went through this crazy God/gods/belief thing, but now that we’re modern (as opposed to a few weeks ago), we now get that all that delusional God/gods/believe stuff can be safely jettisoned.”

No scientist has stated such a thing on this thread! If you know of a scientist who has presented such a bizarre, psychotic idea as science, please provide supporting references. I don’t think you will find those references. That is not science; that is your paranoia showing.

Well, I think I’ll go back to lurking now. Based on your prior behavior I am certain you will not respond to this post and that is fine with me. This post has been written to defend science and scientists and is here for perusal by the other posters in this thread and for the lurkers.
 
My point was quite clear to me but I think you missed it.

When one says “Evolution is compatible with the Catholic Faith” with no further qualification of exactly what one means by “evolution”, the listener will interpret this statement as “Random mutations and natural selection, without any involvement by some mythical god, is responsible for all complex life, and is compatible with the Catholic faith.” And that is exactly what most (70% atheist) of biologists intend that statement to mean. So people who hear it that way are indeed hearing the intended message.

Now that we both know what the biologists intended to say, and how most listeners are likely to interpret what they say, a Catholic should not say that “evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith.” The reason is that this reinforces the message that God is not involved. When God is not involved, that is contrary to the Catholic faith.

You can, of course, say “Well, my personal definition of evolution includes God and/or allows for the action of God in the process.” And that would be fine. But then if you would need to modify your statement e.g. “Evolution in which God is involved is compatible with the Catholic faith.” But then you’ll need to propose a new mechanism in which “random” is not involved.
I think you are mixing up general definitions with operational definitions.
 
I’m gone. I’m sorry, but when I read some of the posts in this thread I feel a responsibility to respond. And sometimes I give in to that feeling.

I’ll go back to lurking now. Thank you. 🍿
 
OR WILL YOU IGNORE THIS POST, TOO?

It certainly makes you uncomfortable to even discuss science. And may I remind you that sources should be provided when you make a claim such as you have made here. All you have done is provide a baseless assertion.

No scientist has stated such a thing on this thread! If you know of a scientist who has presented such a bizarre, psychotic idea as science, please provide supporting references. I don’t think you will find those references. That is not science; that is your paranoia showing.
LittleSoldier, I believe you are correct. Ed appears very uncomfortable discussing science, fairly naive about scientific epistemology, and woefully uninformed about the discoveries cascading out of every scientific discipline confirming that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic and evolving universe.

The thousands of members of the Catholic Theological Society of America will hold their annual meeting in early June. Last year the atmosphere included a celebration of our human God-given talents enabling us to uncover knowledge about the universe. Some refer to evolution as “Darwin’s gift to theology.”

StAnastasia
 
Ed,

Are you able to get to the* “Index of Citations’ on page 689” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*? I have started to cross reference Genesis 1: 1-31 with Church teaching by reading the paragraphs listed for individual verses.

Blessings,
granny

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
LittleSoldier, I believe you are correct. Ed appears very uncomfortable discussing science, fairly naive about scientific epistemology, and woefully uninformed about the discoveries cascading out of every scientific discipline confirming that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic and evolving universe.

The thousands of members of the Catholic Theological Society of America will hold their annual meeting in early June. Last year the atmosphere included a celebration of our human God-given talents enabling us to uncover knowledge about the universe. Some refer to evolution as “Darwin’s gift to theology.”

StAnastasia
Darwin’s gift to theology? :hmmm::rotfl:

Don’t invest in it.

This group?
Code:
           **Catholic Theologians Denounce  Attacks on Notre Dame **

        
                          [Share This](javascript:void(0))             
          						                    
                Washington- As controversy swirls around President Obama’s  commencement address at Notre Dame this Sunday, over 20 Catholic  theologians issued a statement today denouncing shrill attacks against  the university as betraying a rich Catholic intellectual tradition and  injecting partisan politics into the graduation ceremony.
The statement, signed by the president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and other prominent Catholic scholars, will run as a full-page advertisement in the May 16 edition of the South Bend Tribune. It cautions “those who seek to disrupt these joyous proceedings or to divide the Church for narrow political advantage that history is not on your side.”
The theologians note that Notre Dame has a long tradition of inviting presidents from both political parties to give the commencement. They include former presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, whose positions on the death penalty, use of military power, torture and other central life issues did not align with Catholic social teaching.
“These former leaders were received as sitting presidents who came to speak about great issues of our time,” the statement reads. “The same standard should apply for President Obama, a Christian with deep respect for the role of faith in public life and whose commitment to universal health care, comprehensive immigration reform, environmental stewardship and an economy that works for all Americans reflect core Catholic values.
The complete text of the statement with signers can be found below. To view a PDF of the ad as published in the South Bend Tribune

Big surprise…😦
 
Ed,

Are you able to get to the* “Index of Citations’ on page 689” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*? I have started to cross reference Genesis 1: 1-31 with Church teaching by reading the paragraphs listed for individual verses.

Blessings,
granny

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Yes, I can. Thank you.

Ed
 
Yes, I can. Thank you.

Ed
When you have time, let me know what you think about the creation truths in the Catechism’s Genesis * referenced paragraphs. For example, cited paragraph 299 talks about “God creates an ordered and good world.” But I am not finding the how He did that. Paragraph 298 refers to ex nihilo but not to length of time.* So far the paragraphs I’ve read are not explicit about the actual creating part.

My thought is that the realm of science is being left out for a good reason. I did find a reference to the intellect in human nature in paragraph 299. “Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect…” This, of course, refers to our soul.

Blessings,
granny

I am looking forward to the day when the intellectuals are able to figure out that Divine Revelation is what is important about the Genesis account of creation.
 
To granny -

The Catholic Church does not just study what our senses can perceive. Truths given to us by God are truths. They are not “just faith.” The Bible tells us, In the beginning was the Word."

The word was with God and the word is God.

Then the Word became flesh.

These are the core of just not a belief but a real truth. The Bible tells us, “If Christ is not risen then you are still in your sins.” The world doesn’t get that. You’re looking for Adam, and you are looking for the origin of sin and death coming into the world. This is a real event. It is not just faith.

Will you meet a living Jesus Christ when you die?

The world rejects faith or what it calls supernaturalism. Can you be a Catholic and limit your knowledge to what your senses alone can tell you?

We are called to an encounter with the Living Jesus Christ.

God bless,
Ed
 
It’s not a matter of dissent. Dissent would be claiming that God is not the creator and source of all human life. It’s not a matter of dissent to interpret Genesis 1-11 differently than the rest of Scripture regarding its historicity and literary form.
:ehh: That sounds more like blasphemy. Any time a person or group maintains a disagreement with the Church they are in dissent against whatever it is they disagree with.

By saying that Adam and Eve can be symbols or real or both you seem to be in dissent against the teaching that Adam and Eve are two real people who are the mother and father of the human race, a teaching that Catholics are called to believe.
 
Didn’t I say Ed wouldn’t respond to my post to him?

:rotfl::rotfl: ROTFLOL!!!

From Times Online April 12, 2007

Pope stokes debate on Darwin and evolution:

Benedict XVI has given mixed signals on evolution since becoming pontiff Evolution has not been “scientifically” proven and science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation, Pope Benedict has said in his first reflections on the origins of life.

In comments to students, published yesterday in German, the Pope – who took office in April 2005 –** stopped short of endorsing intelligent design **and said “faith alone” could not “explain the whole picture”.

But, he said: “We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.”

He advised the students not to choose between creationism and evolutionary theory but to adopt “an interaction of various dimensions of reason”.

He said: “I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science.”

Benedict reflected on comments of his predecessor,** John Paul II, who said that theories of evolution were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis." **

He said: “The pope [John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory.

Evolution has come under fire in recent years by proponents – mostly conservative Protestants – of “intelligent design,” who believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher power.

In the United States, supporters of both camps have often clashed over what students should be taught in state schools. New attention has been focused on Roman Catholic views of the issue since Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna said in a speech that restricting debate on Darwin’s theories amounted to censorship.

The Pope’s comments, recorded in the new book Creation and Evolution, appear alongside the reflections of Cardinal Schönborn and others who attended a meeting of students at the papal summer estate at Castelgandolfo outside Rome in September.

His remarks were consistent with one of his most repeated themes, that faith and reason are interdependent and that science, however vital, should not rule out God.

“Science has opened up large dimensions of reason… and thus brought us new insights,” he said. “But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.

“Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it.”

Since taking office, the Pope has sent mixed signals on evolution.** In November 2005, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, told a press conference that the Genesis account of creation and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible was read correctly. **

But last year, Benedict fired his chief astronomer, Father George Coyne, after the American Jesuit priest made similar comments in The Tablet. The sacking was interpreted by commentators as a clear endorsement for intelligent design.

The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted – openly or tacitly – by Roman Catholicism and the mainstream Protestant denominations.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Just what I said - no theory of evolution can be proved. But now it seems that the Pope is not endorsing ID. Pope Benedict XVI is remarkably intelligent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top